ANOTHER HUGE BILL FOR RSPCA PROSECUTION

The Prosecutions Department of the RSPCA, led by barrister Sally Case, has been handed another large bill for the charity’s donors to pay.

Gateshead Magistrates in Tyne and Wear, for prosecuting Michael and Sharon Finnie who mistakenly treated their pet dog Pebbles for fleas when he had a skin condition.
The RSPCA recently sought to characterise Tyne and Wear as the cruellest locality in the UK.
Anne Kasica of the SHG said:
“The Magistrates have sent another clear message to the RSPCA.”
“The message, in my view reads:
‘Stop wasting our valuable court time and resources by prosecuting decent, hard working people who are trying their best and living on a shoestring budget just to get free publicity from a cheap headline’”
Ernest Vine, also of the SHG said:
“The way that the RSPCA have chosen to present their statistics this year is misleading. The SHG don’t believe for a minute that Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, or anywhere in the UK is the ‘heartland of animal cruelty’.”
“In Tyne and Wear, far too many cases are being taken to court by McKeags and the RSPCA. It is this disproportionate prosecution rate that is distorting the statistics.”
“In the past, magistrates gave far too much taxpayers’ money to the RSPCA and their independent expert vets and lawyers. Even failed prosecutions are frequently rewarded, making welfare cases very cheap advertising for the RSPCA.”
“RSPCA lawyers and vets can earn more for an hour than some people earn in a week.”
“The Finnies had clearly tried their best. Why didn’t the RSPCA help them? If the RSPCA had simply provided free veterinary treatment for Pebbles they would not have run up the costs of prosecuting the case and boarding fees for Pebbles.”
“They would also have avoided the heartache that both the Finnies and Pebbles have gone through by being separated.”
“The RSPCA should remember that one of their charitable objects is ‘to promote kindness’”
Anne Kasica concluded:
“The SHG believes that the CPS should actively quality control all RSPCA prosecutions by taking over and dropping those which are clearly not in the public interest and which no responsible prosecutor would bring"
“The SHG calls for a full public inquiry into the RSPCA and its activities.”

ANOTHER HUGE BILL FOR RSPCA PROSECUTION

The Prosecutions Department of the RSPCA, led by barrister Sally Case, has been handed another large bill for the charity’s donors to pay.

Gateshead Magistrates in Tyne and Wear, for prosecuting Michael and Sharon Finnie who mistakenly treated their pet dog Pebbles for fleas when he had a skin condition.
The RSPCA recently sought to characterise Tyne and Wear as the cruellest locality in the UK.
Anne Kasica of the SHG said:
“The Magistrates have sent another clear message to the RSPCA.”
“The message, in my view reads:
‘Stop wasting our valuable court time and resources by prosecuting decent, hard working people who are trying their best and living on a shoestring budget just to get free publicity from a cheap headline’”
Ernest Vine, also of the SHG said:
“The way that the RSPCA have chosen to present their statistics this year is misleading. The SHG don’t believe for a minute that Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, or anywhere in the UK is the ‘heartland of animal cruelty’.”
“In Tyne and Wear, far too many cases are being taken to court by McKeags and the RSPCA. It is this disproportionate prosecution rate that is distorting the statistics.”
“In the past, magistrates gave far too much taxpayers’ money to the RSPCA and their independent expert vets and lawyers. Even failed prosecutions are frequently rewarded, making welfare cases very cheap advertising for the RSPCA.”
“RSPCA lawyers and vets can earn more for an hour than some people earn in a week.”
“The Finnies had clearly tried their best. Why didn’t the RSPCA help them? If the RSPCA had simply provided free veterinary treatment for Pebbles they would not have run up the costs of prosecuting the case and boarding fees for Pebbles.”
“They would also have avoided the heartache that both the Finnies and Pebbles have gone through by being separated.”
“The RSPCA should remember that one of their charitable objects is ‘to promote kindness’”
Anne Kasica concluded:
“The SHG believes that the CPS should actively quality control all RSPCA prosecutions by taking over and dropping those which are clearly not in the public interest and which no responsible prosecutor would bring"
“The SHG calls for a full public inquiry into the RSPCA and its activities.”

RSPCA HOSPITAL TURN TUMOR DOG AWAY

ANIMAL HOSPITAL SENDS SUFFERING DOG HOME, WHAT WOULD ROLF HARRIS SAY ? SHAME ON YOU RSPCA !

A WOMAN unable to work and on benefits had to rely on handouts from friends after her dog was turned away by an animal hospital.

Sue Thomas, of Holly Grove, had sought help for her five-year-old crossbreed Twiggy but the RSPCA’s Greater Manchester Animal Hospital in Salford told her she was outside its catchment area.

She left with a £30 donation towards an operation that cost £530. “I was so upset,” she said.
“There’s no help for anyone in my situation.” Miss Thomas, 44, who takes medication for chronic abdominal pain, said neither the RSPCA nor the PDSA could offer more than donations because of where she lived.

“A lot of people from Shaw Heath and Longridge will be in the same situation as me,” she said.
“I think there should be somewhere to go.”

Twiggy later underwent an operation to treat mammary tumours at Ark Veterinary Surgery in Mobberley Road.

The Self Help Group for farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA have been campaigning for years for an animal NHS for the animals of pensioners and those on benefits.

The RSPCA frequently turns people away and threatens them with prosecution if they fail to obtain prohibitively expensive treatment for an animal that may well have been their sole companion for its entire life, or put it down.

Animals are a part of the lives of many people in this country and it is totally unacceptable for one of the richest charities in this country to turn people who ask for help away thus making animal keeping the province only of the very wealthy.

Shame on the RSPCA who have failed to meet the needs of Sue and Twiggy.

Perhaps now the government will divert some of the squandered lottery millions into providing for animal welfare and preventing suffering by creating an animal NHS.

http://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/news/3759412.Woman_asks_pals_to_help_dog/?action=complain&cid=7255719

RSPCA HOSPITAL TURN TUMOR DOG AWAY

ANIMAL HOSPITAL SENDS SUFFERING DOG HOME, WHAT WOULD ROLF HARRIS SAY ? SHAME ON YOU RSPCA !

A WOMAN unable to work and on benefits had to rely on handouts from friends after her dog was turned away by an animal hospital.

Sue Thomas, of Holly Grove, had sought help for her five-year-old crossbreed Twiggy but the RSPCA’s Greater Manchester Animal Hospital in Salford told her she was outside its catchment area.

She left with a £30 donation towards an operation that cost £530. “I was so upset,” she said.
“There’s no help for anyone in my situation.” Miss Thomas, 44, who takes medication for chronic abdominal pain, said neither the RSPCA nor the PDSA could offer more than donations because of where she lived.

“A lot of people from Shaw Heath and Longridge will be in the same situation as me,” she said.
“I think there should be somewhere to go.”

Twiggy later underwent an operation to treat mammary tumours at Ark Veterinary Surgery in Mobberley Road.

The Self Help Group for farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA have been campaigning for years for an animal NHS for the animals of pensioners and those on benefits.

The RSPCA frequently turns people away and threatens them with prosecution if they fail to obtain prohibitively expensive treatment for an animal that may well have been their sole companion for its entire life, or put it down.

Animals are a part of the lives of many people in this country and it is totally unacceptable for one of the richest charities in this country to turn people who ask for help away thus making animal keeping the province only of the very wealthy.

Shame on the RSPCA who have failed to meet the needs of Sue and Twiggy.

Perhaps now the government will divert some of the squandered lottery millions into providing for animal welfare and preventing suffering by creating an animal NHS.

http://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/news/3759412.Woman_asks_pals_to_help_dog/?action=complain&cid=7255719

ANOTHER RSPCA CASE FAILS

Two days after being the subject of two more hard-hitting BBC documentaries highlighting its serious flaws, the RSPCA's Prosecutions Department has experienced yet another serious reversal.
The case took so long to determine - 18 months - that it could not be referred to in either Radio 4's "File on 4" or Five Live's "McIntyre".
Ludovic and Murvilla Kancels' pet dog Bully, three years old, was seized 18 months ago by the RSPCA and kept in an RSPCA secret "place of safety". The RSPCA's expert Martin Lawton claimed that the seized animal had "suffered unnecessarily" from thinness as a result of being "starved".
Defence vet Daniel Mackenzie-Frazer made clear Bully was not suffering. She was, in fact, feeding pups and this led to loss of condition. He said: "She was thin but not emaciated and followed her owner into the vets which she wouldn't have done if she was in considerable pain".
Mr Kancel had approached Oak Hill Vets the day before Bully was seized and asked for advice on feeding her. It was obvious that he cared deeply for her. Mr Mackenzie-Frazer added: "There has been no evidence of pain in this case. The dog was thin because she had just given birth to puppies and had dedicated her time to allowing them to feed rather than feeding herself".
However, the RSPCA, always hungry for a conviction, elected to rely on Martin Lawton. Both the Kancels, and Kino Hines, were charged with cruelty by starving Bully, perhaps the most serious and emotive animal welfare offence there is, and subjected to the usual media campaign against them.
Criticisms of Lawton made in other matters, in the proceedings against Newham pet-shop owner Simon Gilbert and Lawton's own admission of "reprehensible conduct" in disciplinary proceedings against him before the RCVS, were not disclosed to the defence or to the court.
However, Magistrates saw through the RSPCA's thin case. The submissions of the RSPCA's Solicitors Male & Wagland and Counsel Rex Bryan were, like Martin Lawton's evidence, not accepted.
The court found Ludovic and Murvilla not guilty of causing suffering, AND that there had been no suffering at all.
Bully must be returned and the RSPCA must pay the massive costs. Ludovic and Murvilla very much look forward to having Bully back, and getting to know her again.
After the case, RSPCA Inspector Dawn Avery, herself well-known to the SHG, said that she wanted to "rehome" Bully. Ms Avery said she was "unhappy that Bully spent 18 months in RSPCA kennels while the case was decided".
Ms Avery continued, ominously, that she would "try to monitor the situation and make sure that Bully is okay in the future". The charity paid thousands of pounds for "place of safety" kennels to ensure that Bully was kept away from Ludovic and Murvilla throughout the case.
The charity - given the new powers contained in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 - is perhaps therefore unlikely to leave the matter there.
Anne Kasica, of the SHG, said:
"Bully, happily, was not euthanized, and did not die in the RSPCA's kennel, as happened to Annette Nally's dog Holly. The vast resources spent every year by the RSPCA on its team of fat-cat lawyers, vets and 'place of safety' kennel-owners is sickening."
"The RSPCA says it's 'only' £8 million a year."
"Rex Bryan, Male and Wagland and RSPCA independent witness Martin Lawton have each earned a king's ransom from a series of RSPCA cases."
"I agree with Frank Field MP. It is time that each and every one of the RSPCA's decisions to cause misery is subjected to proper review by the CPS, not by lawyers who personally benefit from the decision to prosecute."
Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said:
"The RSPCA's new Head of Prosecutions Phil Wilson is not even a lawyer and, after his shameful performance on File on 4, I don't think that the RSPCA should let him near any microphones for a bit."
"Sally Case was hopeless, but Mr Wilson is worse. He is also continuing her policy of wasting RSPCA donations. There are defence and court costs to consider too."
"This ridiculous case about an allegedly thin dog took four days to present to the court. At £300 per hour - and some RSPCA lawyers get even more - each member of the RSPCA's legal team have billed £10,000 for court time alone."
"Martin Lawton is, of course, looking to have his costs of attending the trial for four days paid by the court, and therefore the taxpayer, as usual."

For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: s...@the-shg.org

The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since.

The national help line number is 0844 700 66 90
A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are online at http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm

Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at http://www.the-shg.org/

THIS BLOG COMMENDS AND SUPPORTS THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY SHG

ANOTHER RSPCA CASE FAILS

Two days after being the subject of two more hard-hitting BBC documentaries highlighting its serious flaws, the RSPCA's Prosecutions Department has experienced yet another serious reversal.
The case took so long to determine - 18 months - that it could not be referred to in either Radio 4's "File on 4" or Five Live's "McIntyre".
Ludovic and Murvilla Kancels' pet dog Bully, three years old, was seized 18 months ago by the RSPCA and kept in an RSPCA secret "place of safety". The RSPCA's expert Martin Lawton claimed that the seized animal had "suffered unnecessarily" from thinness as a result of being "starved".
Defence vet Daniel Mackenzie-Frazer made clear Bully was not suffering. She was, in fact, feeding pups and this led to loss of condition. He said: "She was thin but not emaciated and followed her owner into the vets which she wouldn't have done if she was in considerable pain".
Mr Kancel had approached Oak Hill Vets the day before Bully was seized and asked for advice on feeding her. It was obvious that he cared deeply for her. Mr Mackenzie-Frazer added: "There has been no evidence of pain in this case. The dog was thin because she had just given birth to puppies and had dedicated her time to allowing them to feed rather than feeding herself".
However, the RSPCA, always hungry for a conviction, elected to rely on Martin Lawton. Both the Kancels, and Kino Hines, were charged with cruelty by starving Bully, perhaps the most serious and emotive animal welfare offence there is, and subjected to the usual media campaign against them.
Criticisms of Lawton made in other matters, in the proceedings against Newham pet-shop owner Simon Gilbert and Lawton's own admission of "reprehensible conduct" in disciplinary proceedings against him before the RCVS, were not disclosed to the defence or to the court.
However, Magistrates saw through the RSPCA's thin case. The submissions of the RSPCA's Solicitors Male & Wagland and Counsel Rex Bryan were, like Martin Lawton's evidence, not accepted.
The court found Ludovic and Murvilla not guilty of causing suffering, AND that there had been no suffering at all.
Bully must be returned and the RSPCA must pay the massive costs. Ludovic and Murvilla very much look forward to having Bully back, and getting to know her again.
After the case, RSPCA Inspector Dawn Avery, herself well-known to the SHG, said that she wanted to "rehome" Bully. Ms Avery said she was "unhappy that Bully spent 18 months in RSPCA kennels while the case was decided".
Ms Avery continued, ominously, that she would "try to monitor the situation and make sure that Bully is okay in the future". The charity paid thousands of pounds for "place of safety" kennels to ensure that Bully was kept away from Ludovic and Murvilla throughout the case.
The charity - given the new powers contained in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 - is perhaps therefore unlikely to leave the matter there.
Anne Kasica, of the SHG, said:
"Bully, happily, was not euthanized, and did not die in the RSPCA's kennel, as happened to Annette Nally's dog Holly. The vast resources spent every year by the RSPCA on its team of fat-cat lawyers, vets and 'place of safety' kennel-owners is sickening."
"The RSPCA says it's 'only' £8 million a year."
"Rex Bryan, Male and Wagland and RSPCA independent witness Martin Lawton have each earned a king's ransom from a series of RSPCA cases."
"I agree with Frank Field MP. It is time that each and every one of the RSPCA's decisions to cause misery is subjected to proper review by the CPS, not by lawyers who personally benefit from the decision to prosecute."
Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said:
"The RSPCA's new Head of Prosecutions Phil Wilson is not even a lawyer and, after his shameful performance on File on 4, I don't think that the RSPCA should let him near any microphones for a bit."
"Sally Case was hopeless, but Mr Wilson is worse. He is also continuing her policy of wasting RSPCA donations. There are defence and court costs to consider too."
"This ridiculous case about an allegedly thin dog took four days to present to the court. At £300 per hour - and some RSPCA lawyers get even more - each member of the RSPCA's legal team have billed £10,000 for court time alone."
"Martin Lawton is, of course, looking to have his costs of attending the trial for four days paid by the court, and therefore the taxpayer, as usual."

For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: s...@the-shg.org

The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since.

The national help line number is 0844 700 66 90
A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are online at http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm

Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at http://www.the-shg.org/

THIS BLOG COMMENDS AND SUPPORTS THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY SHG